That’s it – I can’t take this crap any longer.
As someone who has followed this issue in a professional capacity for nearly 15 years, I am compelled to weigh in. I have read (and actually own) both Earth in the Balance and An Inconvenient Truth, and I have read numerous scientific studies regarding climate change and the relative influences imparted by both mankind and natural factors.
After careful consideration, I have come to understanding that Albert Gore is one of two things: 1) a well-meaning and earnest, but scientifically (and critically) inept man who has been duped into believing the charade of manmade climate change; or 2) a complete fraud who knowingly and blatantly distorts scientific findings to support a preconceived (and scientifically unsupportable) conclusion for the purpose of achieving radical social change.
If you’d like to read evidence on this, take a look at “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism” by Christopher Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. You’ll have to read past some of the snarky commentary (which becomes a bit tiresome), but if a rhetorical vivisection of AIT and the contrivances used to support the premise of manmade climate change is what you seek, ye shall find it here - replete with copious documentation.
That is all.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
you do realize of course that the competitive institute is funded by big oil?
And this has, what, exactly, to do with anything?
Surely you're not making the assertion (and a rather paltry ad hominem one at that) that the source of funding behind an entity's claims always predetermines the outcome?
Would it surprise you to know how much funding of 'pro-manmade warming' research is funded by prominent leftists such as George Soros, Ted Turner, etc.? How about green advocacy groups such as Greenpeace, Sierra Club and the like?
Do you similarly impugn the credibility of the opposite views, when they also have a vested interest in the outcome?
Do you actually believe that the pro-manmade warming crowd is acting only in the best interests of mankind and has no basis for gain from the proscribed “solution”?
Let’s set aside the character / motivation attacks and deal with actual facts & conclusions borne out by scientific rigor, shall we?
Post a Comment